Copyright reformers launch attack on DMCA’s “digital locks” rule

The quest to change a controversial part of copyright law will be a tough fight.

Supporters of copyright reform are hoping that 2013 is the year they get some real momentum going. In the wake of Monday's news that the White House and FCC now support consumers' rights to unlock their cell phones, a new coalition called has launched an effort to repeal the section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that forbids breaking "digital locks."

The group has a website called FixTheDMCA.org, which lays out the problem in a simple, graphical way, and provides tools for people to contact their Congressional representatives. The group's goal is to build support for a repeal of section 1201 of the DMCA, the so-called "anti-circumvention" clause.

That won't be an easy task, since the entertainment industry has fought hard to make digital lock-breaking illegal. When creating DVD copy-protection, for instance, the industry was keen to make sure that getting around such technology would be illegal. This proposal goes further than some others, such as a bill introduced yesterday by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) aimed specifically at unlocking cell phones.

The page highlights some of the more quixotic and outrageous realities of the state of "digital locks" today: unlocking a cell phone to run on another carrier could make you the subject of a federal lawsuit. "Jailbreaking" to run unauthorized software is allowed for cell phones, but not for tablets or game consoles. And blind people have to petition the Library of Congress every three years to make sure they continue to have legal access to screen-reading software for e-books.

Sina Khanifar, who created the petition pushing the White House to support cell-phone unlocking, sent out an e-mail announcing the new group. He also noted that there's no equivalent of the "We The People" petition site meant to reach out to the legislative branch—something that he and his team are working to fix. They created a "placeholder site" at grassroots.io, built over the course of a 72 hour bus ride from San Francisco to Austin that featured "limited Internet connectivity [and] a total of about 10 hours of sleep."

Supporters of the new project are listed on the FixTheDMCA site; they include YCombinator, Reddit, Mozilla, O'Reilly Media, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Fight for the Future, the Internet Archive, IFixit, and a few dozen small software companies.

"At Make magazine, we long have had a slogan—if you can't open it, you don't own it," said Tim O'Reilly, announcing his support of the new project in a press release. "When you can't take something apart, you can't understand it. When it breaks, you can't fix it. When you want it to do something more, you can't modify it. Section 1201 of the DMCA not only takes away critical rights from owners of consumer electronics, it flies in the face of our national priority to improve STEM education and engineering literacy."

I think they could get more sympathy by playing up things the right side of the aisle could respond to: the DMCA erodes the basic idea of private property. It interferes on your rights to do what you like with the stuff you bought.

The DMCA makes no sense in the fact that it allows you to create a backup copy, but labels you a criminal if you circumvent the protections that prevent you from making that copy.

That restriction needs to be lifted.

Although I wouldn't want anyone to find out the hard way, I doubt people are being prosecuted for ripping copy-protected DVDs for backup purposes. The bigger problem is that doing so requires you to obtain illegal software, which in some cases seems likely to bring other risks such as malware.

I copy music CDs to play in the car. After they've been played for a while, bounced around the floor, and then moved to the trunk, I toss them. It's easy to see where parents would want to do something similar with their kids' DVDs, and you're right, it's idiotic that they can't.

The DMCA makes no sense in the fact that it allows you to create a backup copy, but labels you a criminal if you circumvent the protections that prevent you from making that copy.

That restriction needs to be lifted.

Although I wouldn't want anyone to find out the hard way, I doubt people are being prosecuted for ripping copy-protected DVDs for backup purposes. The bigger problem is that doing so requires you to obtain illegal software, which in some cases seems likely to bring other risks such as malware.

It's kind of beside the point of whether people are being prosecuted for ripping DVDs. It's important that our laws not make reasonable actions illegal, and that we fix laws when they nonsensically overstep like DMCA has. Imagine being accused by police of doing something else (e.g. illegally downloading music) and they find that you've got innocently backed-up DVDs on your computer. It shouldn't be possible for them to use the latter as leverage against you, but DMCA does that today. Let's get it fixed.

The DMCA makes no sense in the fact that it allows you to create a backup copy, but labels you a criminal if you circumvent the protections that prevent you from making that copy.

That restriction needs to be lifted.

We have the same screwed up provision here in Canada. Strangely enough the legislation was passed just last year. You would think all the common sense reasons for not making the same mistakes would have prevented that?

The DMCA makes no sense in the fact that it allows you to create a backup copy, but labels you a criminal if you circumvent the protections that prevent you from making that copy.

That restriction needs to be lifted.

Although I wouldn't want anyone to find out the hard way, I doubt people are being prosecuted for ripping copy-protected DVDs for backup purposes. The bigger problem is that doing so requires you to obtain illegal software, which in some cases seems likely to bring other risks such as malware.

It's kind of beside the point of whether people are being prosecuted for ripping DVDs. It's important that our laws not make reasonable actions illegal, and that we fix laws when they nonsensically overstep like DMCA has. Imagine being accused by police of doing something else (e.g. illegally downloading music) and they find that you've got innocently backed-up DVDs on your computer. It shouldn't be possible for them to use the latter as leverage against you, but DMCA does that today. Let's get it fixed.

I agree, but not optimistically. You've got a few thousand thoughtful individuals petitioning their representatives, versus the content industry lobby. I'm not going to vote against my congressman over this one issue, but the other side is going to take him golfing in Scotland. And having said that, I very much hope to be proved wrong.

I agree, but not optimistically. You've got a few thousand thoughtful individuals petitioning their representatives, versus the content industry lobby. I'm not going to vote against my congressman over this one issue, but the other side is going to take him golfing in Scotland. And having said that, I very much hope to be proved wrong.

Unfortunately, probably the best solution is to fight money with money and donate to the EFF or other similar lobbying organizations.

The DMCA makes no sense in the fact that it allows you to create a backup copy, but labels you a criminal if you circumvent the protections that prevent you from making that copy.

That restriction needs to be lifted.

We have the same screwed up provision here in Canada. Strangely enough the legislation was passed just last year. You would think all the common sense reasons for not making the same mistakes would have prevented that?

Oh, wait. The USA writes our IP Iaws ... never mind.

And if Minister of Cultural Affairs Bev Oda hadn't been so blatantly owned by and allied to the vested interests of the "Copyright Industry", those provisions would have been passed years sooner.

The DMCA makes no sense in the fact that it allows you to create a backup copy, but labels you a criminal if you circumvent the protections that prevent you from making that copy.

That restriction needs to be lifted.

Although I wouldn't want anyone to find out the hard way, I doubt people are being prosecuted for ripping copy-protected DVDs for backup purposes. The bigger problem is that doing so requires you to obtain illegal software, which in some cases seems likely to bring other risks such as malware.

I copy music CDs to play in the car. After they've been played for a while, bounced around the floor, and then moved to the trunk, I toss them. It's easy to see where parents would want to do something similar with their kids' DVDs, and you're right, it's idiotic that they can't.

This might be somewhat off-topic, but I was surprised by the use of the term 'illegal' software. Is the presence of an installed utility on your computer that -could- be used to circumvent copy-protection really illegal?

In the UK it is technically illegal to record broadcast TV (from the VHS days) yet owning a VHS player and recorder has never been illegal in the slightest. I seriously doubt if multi-use tools such as Handbrake can be consider illegal, even single-use DVD rippers can be used to rip perfectly legal unprotected DVDs.

Libdvdcss on the other hand... DeCSS been found illegal in US and Norwegian courts, but nowhere else as far as I recall. Libdvdcss (and libdvdcss2) is not the DeCSS at any rate, it's similar to WINE in the sense that it is not copyrighted code or patent infringement etc, but rather an independently developed software library that can carry out similar functions to the protected official libraries. Using libdvdcss for illegal activities, sure under current law, but is possessing or distributing illegal?

If possession of those tools is really illegal, then maybe Stallman had a point all those years ago with his debugging tool story.

Any phone on any network sounds great, but right now each carrier pays for exclusive rights to new cell phones in the form of a subsidy. That means a $450 phone is under $200 WITH SERVICE. Take away the "with service" part and force carriers to work with bi-weekly billing (building around the shortest-term usage) and Apple, HTC, Samsung phones will have to be purchased at full value... probably along with higher monthly fee's to pad/smooth-over chaotic changes to weekly income levels.

Any phone on any network sounds great, but right now each carrier pays for exclusive rights to new cell phones in the form of a subsidy. That means a $450 phone is under $200 WITH SERVICE. Take away the "with service" part and force carriers to work with bi-weekly billing (building around the shortest-term usage) and Apple, HTC, Samsung phones will have to be purchased at full value... probably along with higher monthly fee's to pad/smooth-over chaotic changes to weekly income levels.

Eh? I live in the UK where it is not uncommon to buy handsets offline and use them on a pay-monthly contract. And it frequently works out cheaper than getting a 'free' or 'cheap' handset from a network. Networks are not stupid. They are not willingly giving you something in exchange for nothing. Yes, they do get some discounts presumably from the OEM, but seriously, these same networks charge 10p per text message and frankly silly data rates, they are pretty experienced in extracting maximum revenue from the customer.

Where did the switch to bi-weekly billing come in? Why on earth would monthly fees rise if unlocked handsets were more common? I'm baffled by that. I know the US has a bizarre contract system, but on the GSM networks at least you can sign a sim-only contract, for less than a contract that comes with a free or subsidized phone? That sim-only price may be artificially raised to encourage people to go for the options with handsets which generate higher monthly revenue but if unlocking phones was legal and common enough, networks would be forced to compete on price for sim-only contract customers and the price would reach it's natural level, similar to the level in the UK and the EU where unlocking handsets has always been legal and not everyone pays big monthly bills to get a 'free' or 'cheap' handset.

Lots of luck with that. The studios own too many Congressmen and have too much influence with the White House, the SCOTUS, and the government agencies like the FCC; there's no way they will let anything substantial change.

Any phone on any network sounds great, but right now each carrier pays for exclusive rights to new cell phones in the form of a subsidy. That means a $450 phone is under $200 WITH SERVICE. Take away the "with service" part and force carriers to work with bi-weekly billing (building around the shortest-term usage) and Apple, HTC, Samsung phones will have to be purchased at full value... probably along with higher monthly fee's to pad/smooth-over chaotic changes to weekly income levels.

Yes, but you are talking about a contractual obligation, not a requirement enforced by criminal law. There's a big difference.

Of course he did:We just didn't like the inevitable conclusions, so we pretended that there's no elephant in the room. A classic case of wilful blindness -- We couldn't shoot the messenger, so we simply dismissed him as a nut-job.

Safe harbor. Without that, YouTube and all its ilk would have been sued out of existence. Safe harbor allows them to not have to scan every work that gets uploaded for copy-written material. So long as they follow the rules of safe harbor, they can't be sued for carrying and distributing copy-written content that users upload.

The DMCA makes no sense in the fact that it allows you to create a backup copy, but labels you a criminal if you circumvent the protections that prevent you from making that copy.

That restriction needs to be lifted.

Although I wouldn't want anyone to find out the hard way, I doubt people are being prosecuted for ripping copy-protected DVDs for backup purposes. The bigger problem is that doing so requires you to obtain illegal software, which in some cases seems likely to bring other risks such as malware.

This is just mindless fear mongering nonsense.

Software from "illegimate" sources is no worse in this regard than the "official" stuff.

In general, software download sites suffer from being spam landmines that n00bs are ill equiped to navigate or deal with. Quite often there are many spam sites trying to position themselves as the originator of popular software packages.

You don't have to even get anywhere near "piracy" in order for this to be a problem.

Seeing this crap after not being used to it really gives you an appreciation for Walled Gardens and Linux repositories.

Thanks Ars for pointing out that having the freedom to tinker is essential to preserving our STEM abilities and leadership. The anti-circumvention provision needs to go, especially given that the DMCA allows legitimate activities that are prevented by the artful catch-22 it creates.

Primarily (exclusively?) the Safe Harbor section, if not in its entirety. By formally recognizing safety from liability for user-posted content it allows sites like Youtube, Facebook, and even Reddit to exsit; without that provision, they'd be sued into oblivion within a day. That said, the penalties for false takedowns are impotent, and so it doesn't exactly work WELL, but without it, sites with user-submitted content couldn't work at all.

Bilalqayum wrote:

DNick wrote:

will1158 wrote:

The DMCA makes no sense in the fact that it allows you to create a backup copy, but labels you a criminal if you circumvent the protections that prevent you from making that copy.

That restriction needs to be lifted.

Although I wouldn't want anyone to find out the hard way, I doubt people are being prosecuted for ripping copy-protected DVDs for backup purposes. The bigger problem is that doing so requires you to obtain illegal software, which in some cases seems likely to bring other risks such as malware.

I copy music CDs to play in the car. After they've been played for a while, bounced around the floor, and then moved to the trunk, I toss them. It's easy to see where parents would want to do something similar with their kids' DVDs, and you're right, it's idiotic that they can't.

This might be somewhat off-topic, but I was surprised by the use of the term 'illegal' software. Is the presence of an installed utility on your computer that -could- be used to circumvent copy-protection really illegal?

In the UK it is technically illegal to record broadcast TV (from the VHS days) yet owning a VHS player and recorder has never been illegal in the slightest. I seriously doubt if multi-use tools such as Handbrake can be consider illegal, even single-use DVD rippers can be used to rip perfectly legal unprotected DVDs.

Libdvdcss on the other hand... DeCSS been found illegal in US and Norwegian courts, but nowhere else as far as I recall. Libdvdcss (and libdvdcss2) is not the DeCSS at any rate, it's similar to WINE in the sense that it is not copyrighted code or patent infringement etc, but rather an independently developed software library that can carry out similar functions to the protected official libraries. Using libdvdcss for illegal activities, sure under current law, but is possessing or distributing illegal?

If possession of those tools is really illegal, then maybe Stallman had a point all those years ago with his debugging tool story.

As it stands right now, you're right in that possession alone is not illegal, but rather the use (much like lockpicks or pretty much every tool in Backtrack Linux). That said, there have been many pushes over the years to make possession of certain software illegal. In particular I recall the Bush regime pressuring foreign governments to ban penetration testing software on the grounds that its sole purpose was cracking (completely ignoring the legitimate use of white hat penetration testing). I don't know how successful it was, though (and ironically I don't believe they attempted to do it in the US, just pressure others; probably the same kind of bootstrapping they were trying to do with ACTA, get others to do it so we can say we have to restrict more to stay in line with others, then pressure them to restrict more, rinse, and repeat.)

iG-Wiz wrote:

Any phone on any network sounds great, but right now each carrier pays for exclusive rights to new cell phones in the form of a subsidy. That means a $450 phone is under $200 WITH SERVICE. Take away the "with service" part and force carriers to work with bi-weekly billing (building around the shortest-term usage) and Apple, HTC, Samsung phones will have to be purchased at full value... probably along with higher monthly fee's to pad/smooth-over chaotic changes to weekly income levels.

As has been repeatedly addressed, they not only make up the difference, but turn a tidy profit on top of it, over the duration of that 2 year contract. At the conclusion of the contract, the phone is YOURS, as the subsidy has been repaid. Under the first-sale doctrine, once they sell you the phone they give up control over it. So maybe they pay for an exclusive deal for a particular model of phone, that still gives them 2 years (if they refuse to sell it without the subsidy) of exclusivity before those phones could be taken to another carrier (by the original purchaser or hitting the second-hand market).

Safe harbor. Without that, YouTube and all its ilk would have been sued out of existence. Safe harbor allows them to not have to scan every work that gets uploaded for copy-written material. So long as they follow the rules of safe harbor, they can't be sued for carrying and distributing copy-written content that users upload.

The DMCA is the reason we have the safe harbors. Without the DMCA, there would be no need for section 203, which is part of the DMCA. Safe harbors was put in place to protect third parties from liability in DMCA claims.

Safe harbor. Without that, YouTube and all its ilk would have been sued out of existence. Safe harbor allows them to not have to scan every work that gets uploaded for copy-written material. So long as they follow the rules of safe harbor, they can't be sued for carrying and distributing copy-written content that users upload.

The DMCA is the reason we have the safe harbors. Without the DMCA, there would be no need for section 203, which is part of the DMCA. Safe harbors was put in place to protect third parties from liability in DMCA claims.

On the contrary, even without the DMCA, prior existing copyright law would have been more than sufficient to kill those sites. With or without the rest of the DMCA, the safe harbor provisions were essential in allowing the whole "web2.0" thing to happen.

Any phone on any network sounds great, but right now each carrier pays for exclusive rights to new cell phones in the form of a subsidy. That means a $450 phone is under $200 WITH SERVICE. Take away the "with service" part and force carriers to work with bi-weekly billing (building around the shortest-term usage) and Apple, HTC, Samsung phones will have to be purchased at full value... probably along with higher monthly fee's to pad/smooth-over chaotic changes to weekly income levels.

Yes and those same companies collect ETF's which cover the cost if the person leaves before contract is up. Your point is moot.

Thanks Ars for pointing out that having the freedom to tinker is essential to preserving our STEM abilities and leadership. The anti-circumvention provision needs to go, especially given that the DMCA allows legitimate activities that are prevented by the artful catch-22 it creates.

This.

The DMCA as it stands today is inherently discriminatory to concepts of ownership that encourage innovation by getting under the hood and tinkering.

Safe harbor. Without that, YouTube and all its ilk would have been sued out of existence. Safe harbor allows them to not have to scan every work that gets uploaded for copy-written material. So long as they follow the rules of safe harbor, they can't be sued for carrying and distributing copy-written content that users upload.

But, without the DMCA in the first place, safe harbor is not needed. Safe harbor is not something good that the DMCA does, its just a relief for the bad it creates, BIG difference there.

Safe harbor. Without that, YouTube and all its ilk would have been sued out of existence. Safe harbor allows them to not have to scan every work that gets uploaded for copy-written material. So long as they follow the rules of safe harbor, they can't be sued for carrying and distributing copy-written content that users upload.

But, without the DMCA in the first place, safe harbor is not needed. Safe harbor is not something good that the DMCA does, its just a relief for the bad it creates, BIG difference there.

Except, as already pointed out, that's not the case. The laws prior to the DMCA were more than enough to kill these companies, so with or without the rest of the DMCA, the safe harbor provisions WERE essential to allowing the current service offerings we see prosper. That's not to say that the DMCA didn't make things far worse, but it doesn't change that the safe harbor rules were a good thing in themselves, with or without the rest of it.

The DMCA makes no sense in the fact that it allows you to create a backup copy, but labels you a criminal if you circumvent the protections that prevent you from making that copy.

That restriction needs to be lifted.

<...>This might be somewhat off-topic, but I was surprised by the use of the term 'illegal' software. Is the presence of an installed utility on your computer that -could- be used to circumvent copy-protection really illegal?<...>

As it stands right now, you're right in that possession alone is not illegal, but rather the use (much like lockpicks or pretty much every tool in Backtrack Linux).

I'm not sure where you got that it's legal to possess DVD decryption software. The federal case against 321 software held that it's illegal for 321 to both make and distribute DVD Decrypter. I haven't looked deeply into the case but from the following article it also is saying that it's not permissible for consumers to use the software to decrypt DVDs, as it's not "fair use" in this case since it would require circumvention of copyright protection measures. I believe the implication then at least is that it's also illegal to both use and own this illegal software. I strongly disagree with that decision but that seems to be the current state of the law.

Safe harbor. Without that, YouTube and all its ilk would have been sued out of existence. Safe harbor allows them to not have to scan every work that gets uploaded for copy-written material. So long as they follow the rules of safe harbor, they can't be sued for carrying and distributing copy-written content that users upload.

But, without the DMCA in the first place, safe harbor is not needed. Safe harbor is not something good that the DMCA does, its just a relief for the bad it creates, BIG difference there.

Except, as already pointed out, that's not the case. The laws prior to the DMCA were more than enough to kill these companies, so with or without the rest of the DMCA, the safe harbor provisions WERE essential to allowing the current service offerings we see prosper. That's not to say that the DMCA didn't make things far worse, but it doesn't change that the safe harbor rules were a good thing in themselves, with or without the rest of it.

The safe harbor thing would have come along either way.

The supreme court VCR ruling of significant non infringing uses would have applied. It might have taken a lot of court precedent rather than an Act of Congress, but the only difference between the way things are right now and the way they'd be without the DMCA is that without the DMCA there we wouldn't have the idiocy of (for all intents and purposes) not actually owning the items that we have bought and paid for.

The DMCA makes no sense in the fact that it allows you to create a backup copy, but labels you a criminal if you circumvent the protections that prevent you from making that copy.

That restriction needs to be lifted.

<...>This might be somewhat off-topic, but I was surprised by the use of the term 'illegal' software. Is the presence of an installed utility on your computer that -could- be used to circumvent copy-protection really illegal?<...>

As it stands right now, you're right in that possession alone is not illegal, but rather the use (much like lockpicks or pretty much every tool in Backtrack Linux).

I'm not sure where you got that it's legal to possess DVD decryption software. The federal case against 321 software held that it's illegal for 321 to both make and distribute DVD Decrypter. I haven't looked deeply into the case but from the following article it also is saying that it's not permissible for consumers to use the software to decrypt DVDs, as it's not "fair use" in this case since it would require circumvention of copyright protection measures. I believe the implication then at least is that it's also illegal to both use and own this illegal software. I strongly disagree with that decision but that seems to be the current state of the law.

Distribute you're absolutely right (that's the same way Sony was able to pressure Geohotz into a settlement), but the software itself wouldn't be illegal. It sounds like they might have argued they were breaking the law in the process of making the software (or it may include proprietary software in it; remember the forbidden number?).

I'm not sure where you got that it's legal to possess DVD decryption software. The federal case against 321 software held that it's illegal for 321 to both make and distribute DVD Decrypter. I haven't looked deeply into the case but from the following article it also is saying that it's not permissible for consumers to use the software to decrypt DVDs, as it's not "fair use" in this case since it would require circumvention of copyright protection measures. I believe the implication then at least is that it's also illegal to both use and own this illegal software. I strongly disagree with that decision but that seems to be the current state of the law.

But the link that you posted argues the opposite. If you scroll down to the second post you get a FAQ put up by 321 for their customers where they repeatedly state that the rules does not affect their customer base but rather the sale of the software.

For example.

Will I have to remove this from my pc?No you will not. This injunction only affects 321 Studios. It does not affect our consumer base.

Is it illegal for me to own or use the software?It is not illegal for you to own or use the software. The injunction only applies to 321 Studios.